With Toronto's "show me the money" cry still unheard, Premier Kathleen Wynne's decision to put the brakes on makes political sense.

Premier Kathleen Wynne, a Toronto resident, avowed lover of the city, representative of a riding that could use some cash, leader of a party with barely enough seats to form a minority government — a government propped up by the windfall of seats from Toronto — this same premier has inserted herself into the casino debate by issuing a stop order on any plans to slip Toronto some extra cash for hosting one of the new mega casinos her Liberal party says Ontario needs to deliver revenues to the provincial treasury.

Makes perfect political sense for Wynne. But the entire process is a loser for Torontonians trying to analyze which way to land in the high-stakes gambling drama.

By now, every Torontonian should have been told exactly how much money in guaranteed hosting fees the city will get to make this deal with the devil.

Casino operators have ratcheted up the lobbying at city hall, they’ve bedazzled the locals with promises of jobs, shiny new convention space and one or another fan-dangled fantasy that may or may not leave the display boards and easels on which they sit.

The citizens? In the dark on the most critical element of the decision: How much?

Yes, some of us are morally opposed to gambling. Others are turned off the addiction and its social ills. A large segment couldn’t care less one way or the other. In fact, the majority of Torontonians are not exercised enough to raise a stink or even give more than cursory attention to this issue.

But seeing that it’s only about the money — really — then, show us the money. Please.

City staff recently postponed the release of its report on the pros and cons of hosting the mega casino downtown. The delay, say those in the know, is entirely about the money.

Early estimates suggested Toronto could get $168 million from a casino. Some city officials have suggested they want as much as $100 million. Paul Godfrey, head of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Co., says the city is in the clouds with expectations, and OLG is on the ground. Where they meet is crucial to the survival of this proposal.

Councillor Michael Thompson is a good case in point. An ally of pro-casino Mayor Rob Ford, he has not pledged allegiance to a casino. Thompson wants, “at a minimum,” $100 million. He says he has spoken to at least three casino operators and others associated with managing casinos, and they back the $100 million figure as reasonable. Some suggest a larger sum.

Now, using the current gaming formula the province employs to calculate hosting fees — 2.5 per cent of revenues — a Toronto casino would have to be among the most lucrative in the world to net $100 million.

My poor math suggests revenues of $4 billion would be required.

The most rosy projection for a Toronto casino comes in at $2 billion, and most observers drop their gaze and mumble that such a yield is wildly optimistic. So, to earn $100 million a year, the Toronto casino would have to generate twice the unrealistic revenues of optimistic casino dealers.

Unless Toronto gets a better deal than the 2.5 per cent take, that is the norm. Using that formula, Toronto now gets $15 million a year from Woodbine on gross revenues of $600 million.

Which brings us back to Wynne and the province.

This is their baby. With a growing deficit, the party sent OLG looking to expand and rake in billions to the treasury. That was before Wynne became premier. She does not like casinos and seems secure in doing everything to hinder their growth in her hometown.

And there is this calculation that nicely fits her political agenda. Wynne’s minority government could be toppled at any time. She can’t go to the polls — rich in Toronto seats and seeking to expand beyond the 416 area code — with mayors outside Toronto blasting her for giving Toronto a sweetheart deal while stiffing the rest of the province.

The premier’s views should be respected, says Thompson, who holds a meeting on the issue in his ward Saturday.

“Toronto didn’t go chasing a casino,” he says. “If it’s a one-size-fits-all (revenue formula), clearly that’s a problem for us. I won’t be losing any sleep.”

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.